Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for November 22, 2010

Lets them get away from all the standing around and washing tanks.

They are killing Afghans? civilians? UN forces? All of the above?

Baslim, I had the same thought!

“Just wait”? We’ve been there for years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droneattacksin_Pakistan

I was in the PX Friday night. Little sign up front said that Medal of Honor newest version won’t be sold. Today I finally recalled why.

@Potrzebie Not to arouse too much controversy here and I understand the “sensitivity” issues at hand, but it seems it would be a worthwhile endeavor to be able to play the enemy, on the off chance of being able to suss their thought patterns.

Just the same, it is probably for the better that AAFES doesn’t carry it.

Potrzebie - please help this civilian understand your post :

why?

In reference to yesterday’s trenchant strip on Virginia Thomas’s telephone call to Anita Hill & the discussion about it:

As usual, Doonesbury hits the nail on the head. Virginia Thomas called Anita hill to distract from the stories about her questionable activities with her ultra-regressive PAC and how her work there endangers her husband’s disinterest as a justice on the Supreme Court.

Her call succeeded in reminding us of Justice Thomas’s mendacity & prevarications during his hearings and of how close was his confirmation vote. Dan Quayle presided that vote in case of a tie, and he was only two votes away from needing to actually do something.

It also spurred more attention on the new admission of Thomas’s former girlfriend that Anita Hill was telling the truth: “Clarence Thomas’s Ex-Girlfriend Backs Anita Hill in Memoir Detailing His ‘Hobby’”.

Several opiners compared Thomas to Bill Clinton. The comparison has many weaknesses, but it does point out that Thomas’s impeachment trial is long overdue. I hope that all those who eagerly compared Thomas to Clinton will have the gumption to call for Thomas’s impeachment.

In re today’s strip: I had to Google “Black Ops”. I see that it is a new video game. I wonder where this week’s story is going.

Babka, in most 1st shooters, you have to switch sides to play online, every other round. In MOH, you have to play as Taliban.

Due to pressure from various military officials and veterans organizations, the word Taliban was removed from the multiplayer part of the game in which players would directly play as the Taliban, instead replaced with the term Opposing Force. The singleplayer campaign as well as overall gameplay will not be affected by the change. However, even in light of this change, the game will still not be sold on military bases. The AAFES Commander Maj. Gen. Bruce Casella said, “Out of respect to those touched by the ongoing, real-life events presented as a game, Exchanges will not be carrying this product.” He continued, “I expect the military families who are authorized to shop the Exchange are aware, and understanding, of the decision not to carry this particular offering

“In MOH, you have to play as Taliban.”

I do not believe that is a true statement.

Stopping her ears to fbjsr’s cogent demonstration—-that Clinton’s lying merited impeachment whereas Thomas’s did not—-Neolib still backs Trudeau’s efforts to revise history from partisan motives.

Neolibs make lousy historians because their selective memory perverts their judgment. To quote some of their arguments from yesterday and today:

Anita Hill “paid a heavy price for her bravery and honesty” whereas Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky are dismissed as Republican stooges. And Clarence Thomas is vilified for lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee whereas President Clinton is excused for his flat lie to the American people.

Why? Because his fellatio in the Oval Office (as compared with Thomas’s remark about pubic hair) “is not something [Clinton] should have been asked about in front of a Grand Jury.”

Blindly partisan historical judgments like these are right up (or down) there with Fox news.

Fbj, let us be completely accurate. Nothing ever proved Bill Clinton guilty of perjury, and, when the Senate tried him for perjury, it found him not guilty.

Having sex with an intern is not illegal. Sexual harassment, on the other hand, which was the accusation Anita Hill accurately—from all the evidence—made against Justice Thomas is illegal.

The two positions are hardly comparable, but Clinton was tried, and Thomas was not. Since you want to keep comparing Thomas & Clinton, then let us impeach Thomas and air all the evidence.

Merm, I am glad that you hold Thomas to the Chappaquiddick standard, and, although that comparison is also inappropriate, Senator Kennedy was found guilty in that matter, so, again, let us try Thomas.

Isn’t it interesting that Democrats are willing to go on trial for their accusations, but Republicans hide?

The Grand Jury / Special Prosecutor should have been charged with spending Millions of dollars asking irrelevant questions about how a president gets his rocks off. The Republicans had been trying for years to charge or embarrass Clinton with something, anything. Incredible how low they were prepared to go. I’m not apologizing for Clinton’s personal life, but the only damage done Lewinsky is from the Grand Jury inquiry.

@ prfesser,

“Monica pursued Bill”? There’s nothing “fair and honest” about that statement at all - it was a classic “quid pro quo” sexual harassment case. “She liked it” is the classic lame defense offered by the lowest of workplace predators. Was the Secret Service outgunned and unable to protect Bill Clinton from Monica’s aggressive advances?

In actuality, Anita Hill pursued Clarence Thomas, from the Department of Education (where she claims the harassment started) to his next job at the EEOC where she became his “special assistant”. She also kept in personal contact with him (in public and in private) after that job was over. Isn’t that odd behavior for a victim?

Great. Now, if we could just get the enemy to be content playing Pin the Tail on the Camel for a while, our troops could safely blow them away, come home, & play all the Black Ops they want!

“Isn’t it interesting that Democrats are willing to go on trial for their accusations, but Republicans hide?” asks Neolib BrianCrook, adding that Clinton was never “proved guilty of perjury, and when the Senate tried him for perjury, it found him not guilty.”

Here’s a perfect example of Neolib’s selective memory. In fact, a federal judge later found Clinton in contempt of court for not telling the truth under oath (i.e., perjury). And he eventually admitted giving false testimony about his relationship with Lewinsky, surrendered his law license, and paid about $1 million in fines and settlement costs.

But these mere historical facts are not even on Neolib’s radar screen.

Oh boy, here it comes again… the old “perjury” argument, in which people (of both parties) say it’s a crime to lie under oath about trivial matters (such as a consensual sex act), but then pretty much want to let the politicians off when they lie about matters of actual consequence (e.g., the “Niger Yellowcake” fabrication).

Here’s my proposal: whenever anybody is sworn into any position of responsibility, be it president, congresscritter, supreme court justice, etc., include in the oath of office an oath to tell the truth in all public statements. Under penalty of perjury. You can refuse to answer, but lying will be severely punished. How’s that sound?

Oh yeah, if we did that, every single president to hold office in my lifetime would be behind bars. Of course, that might be an improvement…

If the Bush I Justice Department had wanted to prosecute for perjury in regard to the conflict between Anita Hill’s and Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearing testimony, it would have been a simple matter for the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia to have presented the matter to the D.C. grand jury for an indictment of one or the other. Of course, at that point the prosecution would not control which of the two principals would be true billed.

A large part of the disgust that liberals have felt for Justice Thomas is the fact that he succeeded Thurgood Marshall, a giant among Supreme Court advocates whose briefcase Thomas was only nominally qualified to carry. This was an affirmative action appointment, pure and simple.

Imagine, if you will, that when Antoinin Scalia retires, the President nominates Joe Pesci to succeed him. Hey – he’s Italian, and he played the title role in My Cousin Vinnie! (And nothing requires that a member of SCOTUS be a lawyer, anyway)

thanks, Potrzebie!

and as for Clinton’s costly impeachment show (we had to replace the O.J. trial with SOMEthing to keep the ratings up, right?)…..how much did that farce cost to produce, and how handy to have us focused on that sideshow while Bin Laden was getting all his ducks in a row.